NationStates

Yeah, there was.....damage done. I don't know too much about this to have a strong opinion.

Kubra wrote:Remember when terrorism meant well organised folks doing bank robberies, bombings, assassination, airplane hijacking, all that fun stuff?

Any millenial born after 2001 can't commit carefully planned acts of mass violence and terror in order to threaten entire governments and scare ethnic or ideological groups that they oppose... all they know is is protest, post they hashtags, argue, be liberal, read the news, and whine.

this contibuted nothing
but when i first read it i thought it said "Should Black Lives Matter?"
and the answer is yes

Slopestyle wrote:Definitely be considered a terrorist group.
Peaceful protest is one thing, but wanton destruction quite another.

For fucks sake. Simple crime and destruction does not equal terrorism. Terrorism is an organized group planning out and committing attacks, not simple rioting by supporters of a social movement. There is a major fucking difference and classifying BLM as a terrorist group is not only incorrect, but can also be dangerous in it's implications.

Bewaffnete Krafte wrote:this contibuted nothing
but when i first read it i thought it said "Should Black Lives Matter?"
and the answer is yes

If that was the question, this thread would get deleted.

Andsed wrote:

Slopestyle wrote:Definitely be considered a terrorist group.
Peaceful protest is one thing, but wanton destruction quite another.

For fucks sake. Simple crime and destruction does not equal terrorism. Terrorism is an organized group planning out and committing attacks, not simple rioting by supporters of a social movement. There is a major fucking difference and classifying BLM as a terrorist group is not only incorrect, but can also be dangerous in it's implications.

Wait.....

Does BLM advocate for violence?

Post War America wrote:

Slopestyle wrote:Definitely be considered a terrorist group.
Peaceful protest is one thing, but wanton destruction quite another.

Peaceful protest was tried, and it was either ignored, or considered not respectful enough. Some engaging in said peaceful protest were labeled as traitors for "not supporting the troops". More active peaceful protests were also tried, and met with police violence. Eventually it becomes evident that more confrontational methods are required.

Also, if we're considering some smashed windows and beaten folks the makings of a terrorist organization, I'm pretty sure a health percentage of the population of men ages 18-40 would probably be terrorists.

And im sure that ruining other peoples businesses and causing a lot of damage is going to make people more sympathetic to wards them

Slopestyle wrote:

Post War America wrote:
Peaceful protest was tried, and it was either ignored, or considered not respectful enough. Some engaging in said peaceful protest were labeled as traitors for "not supporting the troops". More active peaceful protests were also tried, and met with police violence. Eventually it becomes evident that more confrontational methods are required.

Also, if we're considering some smashed windows and beaten folks the makings of a terrorist organization, I'm pretty sure a health percentage of the population of men ages 18-40 would probably be terrorists.

And im sure that ruining other peoples businesses and causing a lot of damage is going to make people more sympathetic to wards them

I agree with you, looting stores ain't gonna make people not racist, sadly the opposite.

Slopestyle wrote:

Post War America wrote:
Peaceful protest was tried, and it was either ignored, or considered not respectful enough. Some engaging in said peaceful protest were labeled as traitors for "not supporting the troops". More active peaceful protests were also tried, and met with police violence. Eventually it becomes evident that more confrontational methods are required.

Also, if we're considering some smashed windows and beaten folks the makings of a terrorist organization, I'm pretty sure a health percentage of the population of men ages 18-40 would probably be terrorists.

And im sure that ruining other peoples businesses and causing a lot of damage is going to make people more sympathetic to wards them

Unfortunately it is doubtful that after years of trying peaceful protest, they were going to win those people over anyway. Given the whole labeling one Colin Kaepernick and those doing the same extraordinarily peaceful and respectful protest traitors for lacking sufficient worship of the military, I can understand how the situation has escalated. Furthermore random acts of violence does not a terrorist group make.

La xinga wrote:

Bewaffnete Krafte wrote:this contibuted nothing
but when i first read it i thought it said "Should Black Lives Matter?"
and the answer is yes

If that was the question, this thread would get deleted.

Andsed wrote:For fucks sake. Simple crime and destruction does not equal terrorism. Terrorism is an organized group planning out and committing attacks, not simple rioting by supporters of a social movement. There is a major fucking difference and classifying BLM as a terrorist group is not only incorrect, but can also be dangerous in it's implications.

Wait.....

Does BLM advocate for violence?

BLM is by and large a social movement. That means it is not really an organized entity. So it really cannot "advocate" for anything, because it is not a singular group. It is just an idea people broadly agree on. And because of that the movement is made up of by both radicals and moderates. Which is why it cannot be classified as terrorist group.

Post War America wrote:

Slopestyle wrote:
And im sure that ruining other peoples businesses and causing a lot of damage is going to make people more sympathetic to wards them

Unfortunately it is doubtful that after years of trying peaceful protest, they were going to win those people over anyway. Given the whole labeling one Colin Kaepernick and those doing the same extraordinarily peaceful and respectful protest traitors for lacking sufficient worship of the military, I can understand how the situation has escalated. Furthermore random acts of violence does not a terrorist group make.

That depends, does BLM ask people to do violence?

If yes, I'd consider it terrorism, or a gang.
If not, then they're speakers of the American dream.

Punished UMN wrote:This is a silly definition. Terrorism is only violence against civilians for the purpose of causing terror among the population.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

La xinga wrote:

Post War America wrote:
Unfortunately it is doubtful that after years of trying peaceful protest, they were going to win those people over anyway. Given the whole labeling one Colin Kaepernick and those doing the same extraordinarily peaceful and respectful protest traitors for lacking sufficient worship of the military, I can understand how the situation has escalated. Furthermore random acts of violence does not a terrorist group make.

That depends, does BLM ask people to do violence?

If yes, I'd consider it terrorism, or a gang.
If not, then they're speakers of the American dream.

As a decentralized movement they don't order people within the movement to do anything, and generally speaking most BLM activists either outright condemn the violence or at most offer tacit understanding, while not liking that it happens.

La xinga wrote:

Post War America wrote:
Unfortunately it is doubtful that after years of trying peaceful protest, they were going to win those people over anyway. Given the whole labeling one Colin Kaepernick and those doing the same extraordinarily peaceful and respectful protest traitors for lacking sufficient worship of the military, I can understand how the situation has escalated. Furthermore random acts of violence does not a terrorist group make.

That depends, does BLM ask people to do violence?

If yes, I'd consider it terrorism, or a gang.
If not, then they're speakers of the American dream.

Again, BLM is not really an organized entirety with a single rhetoric. it is just a social movement that unites people on a broad idea. So because of that it is made of radicals and moderates who have differing ideas and have called for different things.

Andsed wrote:

La xinga wrote:If that was the question, this thread would get deleted.

Wait.....

Does BLM advocate for violence?

BLM is by and large a social movement. That means it is not really an organized entity. So it really cannot "advocate" for anything, because it is not a singular group. It is just an idea people broadly agree on. And because of that the movement is made up of by both radicals and moderates. Which is why it cannot be classified as terrorist group.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Lives_Matter

Wikipedia needs to be careful.

Black Lives Matter (BLM) is a decentralized movement in the United States advocating for non-violent civil disobedience in protest against incidents of police brutality against African-American people.[2] An organization known simply as Black Lives Matter[a] exists as a decentralized network with about 16 chapters in the United States and Canada, while a larger Black Lives Matter movement exists consisting of various separate like-minded organizations such as Dream Defenders and Assata's Daughters. The broader movement and its related organizations typically advocate against police violence towards black people, as well as for various other policy changes considered to be related to black liberation.[7]

So they do advocate. For non-violence, however, which is good.

Slopestyle wrote:

Post War America wrote:
Peaceful protest was tried, and it was either ignored, or considered not respectful enough. Some engaging in said peaceful protest were labeled as traitors for "not supporting the troops". More active peaceful protests were also tried, and met with police violence. Eventually it becomes evident that more confrontational methods are required.

Also, if we're considering some smashed windows and beaten folks the makings of a terrorist organization, I'm pretty sure a health percentage of the population of men ages 18-40 would probably be terrorists.

And im sure that ruining other peoples businesses and causing a lot of damage is going to make people more sympathetic to wards them

The point of a Riot is not to earn sympathy, it is to enforce it.

Everytime they tried to get sympathy, they still got put down.

Even Peaceful Protestors are being treated the same as Rioters.

The Protestors/Rioters owe the Centrists and Apathetic no peace.

Servilis wrote:

Slopestyle wrote:
And im sure that ruining other peoples businesses and causing a lot of damage is going to make people more sympathetic to wards them

The point of a Riot is not to earn sympathy, it is to enforce it.

Everytime they tried to get sympathy, they still got put down.

Even Peaceful Protestors are being treated the same as Rioters.

The Protestors/Rioters owe the Centrists and Apathetic no peace.

I'd like to briefly mention that the Constitution allows Citizens to violently oppose their government if it refuses to grant them the pursuit of Freedom and Liberty.

Servilis wrote:

Servilis wrote:The point of a Riot is not to earn sympathy, it is to enforce it.

Everytime they tried to get sympathy, they still got put down.

Even Peaceful Protestors are being treated the same as Rioters.

The Protestors/Rioters owe the Centrists and Apathetic no peace.

I'd like to briefly mention that the Constitution allows Citizens to violently oppose their government if it refuses to grant them the pursuit of Freedom and Liberty.

Just out of curiosity, where does it say that?

Farnhamia wrote:

Servilis wrote:I'd like to briefly mention that the Constitution allows Citizens to violently oppose their government if it refuses to grant them the pursuit of Freedom and Liberty.

Just out of curiosity, where does it say that?

One could interpret the 2nd Amendment as being supportive of violent action against a state deemed tyrannical. Your personal mileage may vary however.

Post War America wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:Just out of curiosity, where does it say that?

One could interpret the 2nd Amendment as being supportive of violent action against a state deemed tyrannical. Your personal mileage may vary however.

You could also interpret the Second as meaning that the State will call you up to put down popular uprisings, so ... you personal mileage may differ.

And any Second Amendment discussion should go elsewhere than here.

Yes probably, because their framing of the issues around privilege is demonstrably a racist framework, and attempting to institutionalize racism can be considered violence.

Servilis wrote:

Servilis wrote:The point of a Riot is not to earn sympathy, it is to enforce it.

Everytime they tried to get sympathy, they still got put down.

Even Peaceful Protestors are being treated the same as Rioters.

The Protestors/Rioters owe the Centrists and Apathetic no peace.

I'd like to briefly mention that the Constitution allows Citizens to violently oppose their government if it refuses to grant them the pursuit of Freedom and Liberty.

Like having to wear a mask?

As far as I'm aware, BLM would follow a similar group alignment to that of Antifa — in which both are more practically amorphous collections of like-minded individuals opposed to being structured social groups. We can only ascertain that these groups are terrorist organizations if we wish to see an end to them — as for example what we have seen by Donald Trump who recently labelled Antifa as a 'hate group'. But by what basis is Antifa a hate group? The purpose of such proclamation is not to be fully concerned with fact, but rather to impose one's will. Trump's will is to impose law and order, without susceptibility to nuance.

La xinga wrote:

Bewaffnete Krafte wrote:this contibuted nothing
but when i first read it i thought it said "Should Black Lives Matter?"
and the answer is yes

If that was the question, this thread would get deleted.

Andsed wrote:For fucks sake. Simple crime and destruction does not equal terrorism. Terrorism is an organized group planning out and committing attacks, not simple rioting by supporters of a social movement. There is a major fucking difference and classifying BLM as a terrorist group is not only incorrect, but can also be dangerous in it's implications.

Wait.....

Does BLM advocate for violence?

Yes. They do.

Yes, personally i believe the black lives matter IS by definition a terrorist organization.
The FBI definition : "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives"
Black Lives Matter uses unlawful use of force and violence to intimidate the government, check.
Black Lives Matter uses unlawful use of force and violence to intimidate the US population to either force them into believing their "cause", check.
So yes, it is a terrorist organization by definition.
Let's look at Europe however, the Black Lives Matter movement removes historical statues to deliver as much destruction as possible to the governments.
In 2016, ISIL destroyed the Minaret of Anah located in Al Anbar Province, which dates back to the Abbasid era. The minaret was only rebuilt in 2013 after the destruction by an unknown perpetrator in 2006. In 2017, ISIL destroyed the Great Mosque of al-Nuri and its leaning minaret.
Does it look similar? Guessed so.

The Emerald Legion wrote:

La xinga wrote:If that was the question, this thread would get deleted.

Wait.....

Does BLM advocate for violence?

Yes. They do.

Then that's terrorism.

Rhein-Zollverein wrote:Yes, personally i believe the black lives matter IS by definition a terrorist organization.
The FBI definition : "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives"
Black Lives Matter uses unlawful use of force and violence to intimidate the government, check.
Black Lives Matter uses unlawful use of force and violence to intimidate the US population to either force them into believing their "cause", check.
So yes, it is a terrorist organization by definition.
Let's look at Europe however, the Black Lives Matter movement removes historical statues to deliver as much destruction as possible to the governments.
In 2016, ISIL destroyed the Minaret of Anah located in Al Anbar Province, which dates back to the Abbasid era. The minaret was only rebuilt in 2013 after the destruction by an unknown perpetrator in 2006. In 2017, ISIL destroyed the Great Mosque of al-Nuri and its leaning minaret.
Does it look similar? Guessed so.

Imagine if Jews in Europe were allowed to remove statues of those who persecuted them.